Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Poll: Which position was better argued and supported?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Would you say then that the internal is no more than a reflection of the external?

Could elaborate on what you mean by a reflection?

Your idea that randomness is only an apparent observation, as opposed to a truly representative observation, is as much a presupposition as Popper's stance.

I'm not sure where these "apparent" vs. "truly representative" observations came from - aren't all observations apparent to the observer? The observed randomness as explained by quantum physics indicates that our current descriptions of physical systems are at their core necessarily incomplete due to quantum indeterminacy. Again, these are current models based on our current abilities to observe. Our inability to design experiments which can get around the quantum indeterminacy measurement problem only affects our current models.

I've just posited a way in which such phenomena could be investigated, and it should be dismissed out of hand because of unwarranted methodological bias?

Nobody's dismissing anything, and again, there is no bias. The problem is that the proposed supernatural causes of the observed phenomena have yet to be demonstrably shown to be investigable. I've already shown why your extension from the indirect evidence used to posit dark matter & black holes to positing supernatural causes for observed phenomena is flawed. It's the same reason that, when the scientific community attempts to refine the current models explaining dark matter, nobody attempts to rationally posit that there are invisible pixies comprising the mass which would supernaturally (magically) explain the observed phenomena.

This "we currently have no way", so "we're forced to" is circular reasoning.

Could you explain in more detail how this is circular? Because what you're saying is essentially that, by analogy, "I currently don't own a car, so I'm forced to take the bus to work", is circular reasoning.

The presupposition there is that only natural causes have natural effects, ruling out supernatural causes. I don't see any sufficient reasons being given for that.

Again, this is a common misunderstanding of how science works. As Eugenie Scott puts it: "Science is a way of knowing that attempts to explain the natural world using natural causes. It is agnostic toward the supernatural – it neither confirms nor rejects it." Nobody is attempting to negate the existence of the supernatural. The burden of proof rests firmly with those claiming supernatural causation, and no presuppositions must be made for one to hold to methodological naturalism as expressed above by Ms. Scott.

What then do you make of the work of Schoonmaker, Kubler-Ross, Weiss, Winter, Rawlings, or Zaleski?

I am only somewhat familiar with a couple of those names you listed & their work. And since our conversation appears to be approaching more and more the territory of discussion/debate, I'll ask that, if these external sources are going to be seriously considered during our discussion, you clearly state any claims you wish to imply by listing those names and provide references.

What do you consider a reasonable body of facts? Let's not venture into special pleading territory, my friend. If we do posit what we think is a reasonable body of facts for other kinds of explanations it wouldn't be consistent to plead for another standard with explanations that don't comport with your presuppositions.

I whole-heartedly agree that we should be applying the same standards to various claims. If, for instance, we were to grant credibility to one specific claim of supernatural causation based on a reasonable body of facts, we must also grant the same credibility to other supernatural claims which may contradict the first. Do you see the problem here? It's certainly not special pleading for one to expect extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, even if the claim is their own - indeed, especially if the claim is their own. Anyone who truly believes their claim is truth and wishes to see it victorious under scrutiny should welcome even the strictest standards of investigation & falsifiability.

We all necessarily come into each topic with some presuppositions of our own, and it is our consciousness of that fact that engenders progress.

Again, no presuppositions are required save the basic assumptions we all have to live with, hard solipsism notwithstanding, of course.

You must realize that this paragraph here is dismissing the entire venture of inductive reasoning. Do you really think that inductive reasoning has no propensity at all to arrive at what is most likely true?

There are many problems with induction. Karl Popper expressed criticism of it and said we should instead be focusing on falsification. That said, one can definitely make an inductive argument and say that, since predictability (the type you mentioned in your Feb. 18th post) does not appear to be possible (as yet), determinism is in trouble. However, one could also make an inductive argument regarding the noticeable increase over time in our ability to accurately make predictions in general and posit that our deterministic abilities will continue to increase to ultimately prove determinism to be true. This is just one of the problems with induction - it is too easily affected by the presuppositions of those using it.

p.s. As I mentioned, our discussion is approaching a level of discourse that may be more suitable in an actual debate thread. Would that justify one of us proposing an OP and starting a new thread in one of the debate forums?